View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 20th, 2014, 7:40 pm



Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 BCS or Playoff? 

Should the BCS be replaced with a playoff?
Yes 94%  94%  [ 15 ]
No 6%  6%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 16

 BCS or Playoff? 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post 
wjb21ndtown wrote:
steensn wrote:
I completely disagree. You think the playoffs are more important because that is the way the system is. With a BCS style system, those regular season games become THE important pressure filled games. All you are doing is moving the importance and pressure to the regular season.

I am def not saying the BCS is perfect, all I am saying is the playoff system isn't perfect either. It is just an accepted system because it does force the better teams to play each other. But a lose and you r out system has flaws no matter how you look at it.

It is all about your persespective of what is "fair."


Correct! (bolded info only), and it REWARDS teams that have weak schedules, and PUNISHES teams that have hard schedules, which is why it isn't fair. If there were only 25 teams and they all played eachother, you'd have a point. The fact that teams skate through without playing anyone makes it untrue.

It isn't "the playoffs are more fair" because that's the system that "is" in professional sports, the playoffs are USED by professional sports because that is the system that IS most fair. It is the system that puts thetop teams AGAINST EACHOTHER. (Good job at ducking my previous post by the way)


I only said "professional sports" because that was the example we were talking about, professional football. The BCS does not honor a soft schedule, look at Hawaii. You guys can say OSU's schedule was not tough, but it wasn't easy by any means. If you look at the SOS rankings, OSU is not that far down compared to other top 10 teams.

But here is the main thing. If schools have an easy schedule, they'll just get whooped on in the bowl games right? If they don't deserve to be there, they will lose no problem. If the teams with the tougher schedules couldn't win their games, then they proved they don't deserve the a title shot.

It is all on how you see fair. We can just agree to disagree, but if a team schedules a hard schedule, then they get a chance to prove they belong. They loss they prove they don't deserve to be there. They win they prove they do. If a team with a weaker schedule, lets say Hawaii wins out, then they get a good bowl game, but they don't go to the big game. If a team like OSU has a slightely weaker schedule than some other teams, then they make it. But if they don't deserve to be there, they'll get beat, what's the worry?

You guys, and I'll admit most people, see true "fairness" as forcing teams to go into all all ou t brawl with the top teams and the last one standing wins. But IMO, the issues involved with that create different problems that you accept as just part of the system that is fair. The BCS's system seems unfair because humans are involved in choosing teams to play each ther for the championship. No one will ever be able to change your minds that it is fair in it's own way. You don't like the differences, that is it.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 18th, 2007, 11:20 am
Profile
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 9:00 am
Posts: 1839
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post 
steensn wrote:
mwill2 wrote:
The best team wins the Super Bowl every year. Here's why:

The NFL has a system set up in which a team controls its own destiny from day one. If your team wins a lot, your team can make the playoffs. The more your team wins, the more pressure is on your team to continue to win. Dealing with this pressure is part of the game. If you lose in the playoffs, even if you beat the team during the season, that team is better than your team. That team was better prepared to deal with the pressure of the playoffs.

If the Pats go 16-0 and lose in the playoffs, then it proves that they are not the best team. If they were the best, they would win when the pressure is on.


I completely disagree. You think the playoffs are more important because that is the way the system is. With a BCS style system, those regular season games become THE important pressure filled games. All you are doing is moving the importance and pressure to the regular season.

I am def not saying the BCS is perfect, all I am saying is the playoff system isn't perfect either. It is just an accepted system because it does force the better teams to play each other. But a lose and you r out system has flaws no matter how you look at it.

It is all about your persespective of what is "fair."


No, what makes the NFL and playoff system work is that every team has a shot. In the NFL, a team controls its own destiny from day one. As long as you win, you have a shot at being the champion.

In the NCAA, Hawaii is undefeated and has no shot of playing for a championship.


December 18th, 2007, 3:49 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post 
mwill2 wrote:
steensn wrote:
mwill2 wrote:
The best team wins the Super Bowl every year. Here's why:

The NFL has a system set up in which a team controls its own destiny from day one. If your team wins a lot, your team can make the playoffs. The more your team wins, the more pressure is on your team to continue to win. Dealing with this pressure is part of the game. If you lose in the playoffs, even if you beat the team during the season, that team is better than your team. That team was better prepared to deal with the pressure of the playoffs.

If the Pats go 16-0 and lose in the playoffs, then it proves that they are not the best team. If they were the best, they would win when the pressure is on.


I completely disagree. You think the playoffs are more important because that is the way the system is. With a BCS style system, those regular season games become THE important pressure filled games. All you are doing is moving the importance and pressure to the regular season.

I am def not saying the BCS is perfect, all I am saying is the playoff system isn't perfect either. It is just an accepted system because it does force the better teams to play each other. But a lose and you r out system has flaws no matter how you look at it.

It is all about your persespective of what is "fair."


No, what makes the NFL and playoff system work is that every team has a shot. In the NFL, a team controls its own destiny from day one. As long as you win, you have a shot at being the champion.

In the NCAA, Hawaii is undefeated and has no shot of playing for a championship.


Play a harder schedule... but that contradicts the idea that a cake schedule will get you into the national championship.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 18th, 2007, 3:52 pm
Profile
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 9:00 am
Posts: 1839
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post 
steensn wrote:
Play a harder schedule... but that contradicts the idea that a cake schedule will get you into the national championship.


This proves my point. A team can only play the teams on their schedule. The only way to find out if they truly match up with other good teams is to let them play head-to-head.

On a similar note, even if you like the BCS, the "play a tougher schedule" argument doesn't hold any water. In spite of its efforts, Hawaii (as an example) can't get good teams to travel there to play them. What are the odds that OSU (or any big-time program) will play a road game in Hawaii sometime soon? And nobody travels further for their road games than Hawaii--they play conference games in Louisiana!

Now that's Hawaii's excuse. So how tough are the OSU and LSU schedules, really? How many non-conference games did OSU play outside of the state of Ohio this year? (Answer: zero) When was the last time LSU had to play north of the Mason-Dixon line? (Answer: It was 1998. In the nine seasons since, they've played ONE game outside the south eastern part of the country).

What about other big time programs? Michigan played ZERO non-conference games on the road in 2007. Georgia played no father north than the state of Tennessee--where they LOST. Oklahoma's record when playing north of the state of Oklahoma is 1-1. Etc etc etc...


December 18th, 2007, 5:05 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post 
mwill2 wrote:
steensn wrote:
Play a harder schedule... but that contradicts the idea that a cake schedule will get you into the national championship.


This proves my point. A team can only play the teams on their schedule. The only way to find out if they truly match up with other good teams is to let them play head-to-head.

On a similar note, even if you like the BCS, the "play a tougher schedule" argument doesn't hold any water. In spite of its efforts, Hawaii (as an example) can't get good teams to travel there to play them. What are the odds that OSU (or any big-time program) will play a road game in Hawaii sometime soon? And nobody travels further for their road games than Hawaii--they play conference games in Louisiana!

Now that's Hawaii's excuse. So how tough are the OSU and LSU schedules, really? How many non-conference games did OSU play outside of the state of Ohio this year? (Answer: zero) When was the last time LSU had to play north of the Mason-Dixon line? (Answer: It was 1998. In the nine seasons since, they've played ONE game outside the south eastern part of the country).

What about other big time programs? Michigan played ZERO non-conference games on the road in 2007. Georgia played no father north than the state of Tennessee--where they LOST. Oklahoma's record when playing north of the state of Oklahoma is 1-1. Etc etc etc...


IMO none of that takes away from the BCS. We can agree to disagree, but I really don't see a problem with the BCS idea. I think it could be a MUCH better system than what it is, but I do not think a playoff system is needed in college football to crown the "best" team in in college football. I just don't think playoffs do that. At least single elimination playoffs.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 18th, 2007, 7:10 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post 
Quote:
Report: NCAA president Brand says he'd support a plus-one title system

Weighing in on the issue for the first time, NCAA president Myles Brand told USA Today that he would support a widely-discussed "plus-one" plan to decide college football's national champion.

Although no change is possible until the current BCS contracts expire after the 2009 season, the proposed move would require an NCAA rules change to allow BCS championship finalists to play an additional round of bowl games each season.

Schools "would probably vote for it with some reluctance … they probably would agree," Brand, who has no official input on the matter, told the paper. "And I probably would, too.

One reported variation would see team rankings recalculated after the bowls, with Nos. 1 and 2 moving on to the title game. In another version, the BCS would seed the top four teams and stage semifinals in two of its bowls, with the winners then moving on to play for the title.

Officials in most of the conferences that run the BCS are interested in exploring a plus-one system, however the opposition of the Big Ten and Pac-10, whose contracts with the Rose Bowl and ABC don't run out until after 2013, is seen as a major hurdle to overcome.

The two conferences value their traditional matchup in the Rose Bowl, and feel a plus-one system would increase the chances of ending their valued and long-standing relationship -- an issue that will likely be addressed during the BCS meetings in late April at Miami, the paper reports.

However, even with the clamor for change in the media and general public reaching a fever pitch after a season filled with upsets and uncertainty, television ratings for ESPN and CBS were the highest since 1999, and attendance at major-college football games increased for the 11th-consecutive year.

Certainly, the media is unhappy and a number of the avid fans are unhappy, and they express it," Brand told the paper. "But their unhappiness is not translating to a lack of interest. So I don't think it's as major a problem as some people think it is."


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3163681

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


December 21st, 2007, 9:47 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.